Re: Bits from the DPL (April 2019)
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:39:54PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue 30 Apr 2019 at 09:28AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > I plan to start with the question of preferring dh as a package build
> > tool. https://trends.debian.net/ has already added not using dh as a
> > "package smell" and so I'd like to validate whether the project agrees
> > with that. I'll start a discussion on debian-devel about this issue the
> > week of May 5. While you can of course start a discussion earlier or
> > even start a meta discussion about whether we should have a discussion
> > or whether I'm the right person to start it, I hope that doesn't happen.
> > I'm organizing some material to frame the discussion. I understand that
> > if we make a change it is likely to be a policy change. So perhaps I
> > could have started the discussion on debian-policy rather than
> > debian-devel. I think that for the high level question debian-devel is
> > more appropriate. If we get down to details then shifting to -policy is
> > likely to be a good choice.
> Policy currently documents an interface, and debhelper/dh is an
> implementation of large parts of that interface.
>
> Thus, it would be something of a layering violation if the normative
> part of Policy were to require or recommend using a particular tool to
> implement its other normative content.
I agree.
This is what allow packaging systems to evolve.
Policy takes into account the need for packagers to adapt to upstream
build system and not the opposite (while still often desirable).
For package where upstream do not use the autotools, using dh can be
quite inconvenient compared to plain debhelper.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: